[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses
On Tue, 14 May 2019 21:13:06 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven <> wrote:

> > > Do we care about the value? "(-E%u)"?
> >
> > That too could be confusing. What would (-E22) be considered by a user
> > doing an sprintf() on some string. I know that would confuse me, or I
> > would think that it was what the %pX displayed, and wonder why it
> > displayed it that way. Whereas "(fault)" is quite obvious for any %p
> > use case.
> I would immediately understand there's a missing IS_ERR() check in a
> function that can return -EINVAL, without having to add a new printk()
> to find out what kind of bogus value has been received, and without
> having to reboot, and trying to reproduce...

Hi Geert,

I have to ask. Has there actually been a case that you used a %pX and
it faulted, and you had to go back to find what the value of the
failure was?

IMO, sprintf() should not be a tool to do this, because then people
will not add their IS_ERR() and just let sprintf() do the job for them.
I don't think that would be wise to allow.

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-14 21:35    [W:0.073 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site